I think it's that whole macho Pantera-esque attitude they have, the only ones that are impressed are either mid 30s gym junkie bald guys and 15 year old kids who think that they are the toughest shit around.

There's a nightclub here which caters to goth kids that plays that kind of stuff and there's just nothing funnier than seeing them on the dance floor, fist pumping while wearing a fishnet shirt and more eyeliner than a cheap hooker.

I'd say there's actually a pretty solid debate with a variety of different opinions, from what I've seen so far... besides there's a shit ton of popular bands that are constantly praised on M-A. Not everyone here is an elitist, homie.

Regarding LoG, they were one of the first real metal bands I got into back in the day. I heard "Ruin" and was very intrigued. I was a big fan of NAG, AtPB, and AoTW in my early High School years. LoG (and really the whole metalcore/groove genre) got pretty stale as I ventured deeper into death and black metal, however. Now I don't pay much attention to them, with the exception of the whole Randy Blythe fiasco in the last 6 months or so...

Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:24 amPosts: 2785Location: A step closer to home

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:31 pm

I don't think people hate Lamb of God exclusively because they're popular, but rather because they're the most popular, prominent and universal symbol for 21st-century modern metal (i.e. they've somehow ended up as the figurehead for metal genres that are neither extreme nor traditional - groove metal, metalcore and so on). I'd bet that a large chunk of the people in this thread hate what Lamb of God represent to metal, rather than exclusively what their music sounds like.

Also: yeah, the people who say Lamb of God's songs all sound alike are crazy. They're just like any other band - take a basic formula that is "your sound", expand upon it in multiple directions, and create an album. The way you guys seem to oppose this concept, I'd be disappointed in you if you weren't listening to bands who cycle from black metal to polka to psytrance to crossover thrash to harsh noise within one song.

New American Gospel is great for the Pantera-esque metalcore album it is, Id take it over any of the awful crap they've done post-Ashes of the wake the same with As the palaces burn. The truth is the accusations of being "watered down" are kind of laughable, watered down based on what criterion actually? Simply being devils advocate here they're marginally heavier than most of the nu-metal of the late nineties, heavier than Pantera minus the occasional solo, obviously the stuff after Ashes sucks, but Overkill, Onslaught, Kreator, Metallica, Exodus, and many other thrash titans hopped the groove metal bandwagon and never get twice the lumps LOG get.

But then again none of those bands are aiming towards your average Tapout shirt beer guzzling neanderthal except for maybe every worthless Overkill album after Taking over and up to Ironbound.

I don't think people hate Lamb of God exclusively because they're popular, but rather because they're the most popular, prominent and universal symbol for 21st-century modern metal (i.e. they've somehow ended up as the figurehead for metal genres that are neither extreme nor traditional - groove metal, metalcore and so on). I'd bet that a large chunk of the people in this thread hate what Lamb of God represent to metal, rather than exclusively what their music sounds like.

Also: yeah, the people who say Lamb of God's songs all sound alike are crazy. They're just like any other band - take a basic formula that is "your sound", expand upon it in multiple directions, and create an album. The way you guys seem to oppose this concept, I'd be disappointed in you if you weren't listening to bands who cycle from black metal to polka to psytrance to crossover thrash to harsh noise within one song.

Its not that they're popular, its that they're modern and popular. I'm sure that a lot of people here just dislike they're music too, but the reason that people really hate them is because they're modern and popular.

Its not that they're popular, its that they're modern and popular. I'm sure that a lot of people here just dislike they're music too, but the reason that people really hate them is because they're modern and popular.

I think the next one who says that is getting kicked for 2 months. Shit's annoying.

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pmPosts: 7570Location: The Land Down Under (no, not THAT one)

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:35 pm

Yeah, it's ridiculous. So far, no one has said that or anything even resembling such a thing. People don't like LOG because they're awfully stale songwriters who produce plastic, horribly overproduced garbage. I mean, sure, their image is also rather ridiculous and they might be more famous than they deserve, depending on where you're standing, but usually, when people don't like a band, it's because they don't like the way the aforementioned band sounds. Is that really so fucking difficult to comprehend? Damn.....

_________________

MutantClannfear wrote:

I love that the reviews for the new Dying Fetus get abbreviated on the front page of MA as "Wrong One to Fuck..." Sounds like a remorseful concept album dealing with John Gallagher's experiences with STIs.

I'm not so convinced that the nostalgia thing has 100% to do with it. I purely just believe that for every metalhead, there are going to be a certain number of bands that don't qualify as metal that the individual is accepting of. It all depends one each persons tastes and what they define as metal qualities. It's the reason I can listen to Slipknot but barf whenever I hear A7X. It's the reason some people thought Killswitch Engage is an acceptable band on the archives while I think that's laughable.

Plus, most of the hate towards these bands gets (either consciously or subconsciously) amplified by the hype of the band and the uninformed masses praising them endlessly. For example, I think Slipknot has done great things for meal but I still cringe when I see teenagers walking around in trip shorts with dyed hair wearing a slipknot tee. There's definitely still a huge crowd that listens to more mainstream metal, that is oblivious to the kinds of influences these bands take from in the actual metal scene. I genuinely believe that if SK or A7X or you name it were doing their thing a decade or maybe even a half decade earlier, and never rose to superstar fame, then a lot more metalheads wold think they were the greatest things since sliced bread.

As for LoG in particular, I don't know. They are tolerable to me, but I never thought they were as influential as some of the other radio metal stuff from over a decade ago.

Its not that they're popular, its that they're modern and popular. I'm sure that a lot of people here just dislike they're music too, but the reason that people really hate them is because they're modern and popular.

When will you morons become secure enough in your own tastes that you can stop assuming reasons why people like or hate something? Get over yourselves. This is the worst argument you can use because it's basically a glorified strawman and shows that you have no confidence in your own enjoyment of something your peers hate, so you have to demean them and assume the worst about them to make yourselves feel better. In other words fuck you.

I agree though. Saying 'people hate them because they're popular' is like saying 'people hate them because people like them', which doesn't make any damn sense. As for me, I just don't find them interesting. My opinion on Lamb of God isn't even strong enough to be called 'dislike'; I just don't care about them.

I don't either. But the dude asked why people "don't like" them. Not "disliked" them. But don't enjoy them. So far, people have given an incredible amount of depth to the reasons why they don't enjoy them.

Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:24 amPosts: 2785Location: A step closer to home

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:24 am

Empyreal wrote:

When will you morons become secure enough in your own tastes that you can stop assuming reasons why people like or hate something? Get over yourselves. This is the worst argument you can use because it's basically a glorified strawman and shows that you have no confidence in your own enjoyment of something your peers hate, so you have to demean them and assume the worst about them to make yourselves feel better. In other words fuck you.

And I assume you fail to see the hypocrisy in telling people not to assume why other people dislike things, immediately followed by assuming why they assume people dislike things?

To put it briefly: if it wasn't Lamb of God being publicly flogged, it'd be some other groove metal band, just so long as there was someone people could use as a go-to when pointing out the degradation of modern heavy metal. I get that people dislike their music, but based on the amount of responses in this thread mentioning Lamb of God's fanbase, of all things, you can see it runs at least a bit deeper than that.

I purely just believe that for every metalhead, there are going to be a certain number of bands that don't qualify as metal that the individual is accepting of.

such as hendrix or vivaldi...

but seriously, i do agree with the point you were making despite that weird "exclusive-metalhead-assumption" thing - that everyone's gonna have some band(s) that are widely frowned upon by the metal crowd that they still likei for instance don't have any problem with any of the glam/hair-metal stuff... i might not go out of my way to listen to any of it, but i like a lot of it when i hear it someplace (which is fairly often, seeing as they get played a lot all over the place)but on the other hand i haven't come across a single nu-metal/-core (obviously excluding grind) band that i could stand listening to

_________________All the best bands are affiliated with Satan. -Bart Simpson

When will you morons become secure enough in your own tastes that you can stop assuming reasons why people like or hate something? Get over yourselves. This is the worst argument you can use because it's basically a glorified strawman and shows that you have no confidence in your own enjoyment of something your peers hate, so you have to demean them and assume the worst about them to make yourselves feel better. In other words fuck you.

And I assume you fail to see the hypocrisy in telling people not to assume why other people dislike things, immediately followed by assuming why they assume people dislike things?

To put it briefly: if it wasn't Lamb of God being publicly flogged, it'd be some other groove metal band, just so long as there was someone people could use as a go-to when pointing out the degradation of modern heavy metal. I get that people dislike their music, but based on the amount of responses in this thread mentioning Lamb of God's fanbase, of all things, you can see it runs at least a bit deeper than that.

You contradict your second point if they are being 'flogged' for being supposedly the "face for all metal of the 21st century", then how exactly can another mere groove metal band usurp them given how long they've been doing their own unique style, how misunderstood they are, and moreover how long it took them to articulate their fanbase.

_________________

Malignanthrone wrote:

Thing is, Suicide Silence actually are more sonically massive than a good 95% of all the death metal bands in the Archives! Not metal, sure, but definitely a lot more brutal.

Under_Starmere wrote:

Manowar aren't the Kings of Metal. They're pretenders to a throne that doesn't exist.!

Of course the volume of responses is a direct relation to their popularity. That's how popularity works. Same with the criticism of the fanbase. Also, I really don't see people actively trying to change people's minds about the band, but rather answer the damn OP question.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. So far, no one has said that or anything even resembling such a thing. People don't like LOG because they're awfully stale songwriters who produce plastic, horribly overproduced garbage. I mean, sure, their image is also rather ridiculous and they might be more famous than they deserve, depending on where you're standing, but usually, when people don't like a band, it's because they don't like the way the aforementioned band sounds. Is that really so fucking difficult to comprehend? Damn.....

Speaking as a mostly neutral party, and someone who's mostly only indifferent to LoG, neither hating nor loving them (I only enjoy their most recent record), both explanations are correct when it comes to general LoG naysaying; no doubt, some of the naysayers genuinely just don't enjoy their music, but their level of popularity is certainly a factor. Some of the naysayers who otherwise would just be indifferent to LoG end up hating them due to their high profile, and any hate directed at an at-the-very-worst safe, but ultimately inoffensive groove metal band, seems a product of their popularity. Would any metalhead sincerely "hate" LoG's music if they were just another underground band no one had heard of...?

Would any metalhead sincerely "hate" LoG's music if they were just another underground band no one had heard of...?

A friend of mine was living in the USA and returned here around 2004-2005. He has into classic heavy metal stuff but brought some albums of 'emergent metal acts' which he was enjoying, among them was LoG and KsE (there were more obscure metalcore bands, which he even shared rehearsal rooms there). Those bands were completely unknown here at the time - really - and I said: it sounds like Pantera with a more 'core' feeling, with dumber riffs, mostly awful vocals and I didn't like it too much. Now that they are worldwide known, I have a very similar impression.

I think the 'well known' aspect it's not the main thing why many metalheads dislike Log and stuff like that, it's cause, for many, it sounds completely unimpressive and at least superficially derivative; it resembles Pantera - Vulgar/FBD era too much, thus giving the impression they just picked up a formula and twisted it a little bit and kept playing the same over and over. Again, I say it's the overall first impression that many metalheads that listen metal more than 10 years or so have that I know and/or I've heard about the subject.

I kinda understand too to the people who actually was immersed into metal by these bands, like some metalheads that have a guilty pleasure for having some kind of feelings for nu metal, being their first exposures to 'rock harder than hard rock'. I've heard people saying that Sepultura's Roots is the apex of the band, just cause they were getting into metal for that album and early nu metal and not for the musical qualities - when this talking happens, they avoid the comparison cause in their hearts they feel and know the earlier albums are superior, but for nostalgia they just keep saying the same thing over and over.

I don't really get the hate but on the other end of the spectrum I don't get the absolute praise they receive, I'm mostly indifferent to Lamb of God but I do find them teetering on the good side of the scale. I like the mixture of different influences that shine through, I see a unique sound most of the time and enough variety to keep from boredom. The semi-black metal styled sections in certain songs would probably be the aspect I like the most. I very much enjoy Pantera but I find most of Pantera's music to lack direction and to be hardly ever consistent. Lamb of God on the other hand are consistent, aren't afraid to over play a section and have a foreseeable progression to their songs.

PhilosophicalFrog wrote:

I don't either. But the dude asked why people "don't like" them. Not "disliked" them. But don't enjoy them. So far, people have given an incredible amount of depth to the reasons why they don't enjoy them.

There wouldn't be much of a discussion if it all stuck 100% to what he asked for. It would just be name calling, generalisations, and ignorant half-arsed reasons, despite the OP's pleas. Nothing really of worth or depth.

When will you morons become secure enough in your own tastes that you can stop assuming reasons why people like or hate something? Get over yourselves. This is the worst argument you can use because it's basically a glorified strawman and shows that you have no confidence in your own enjoyment of something your peers hate, so you have to demean them and assume the worst about them to make yourselves feel better. In other words fuck you.

And I assume you fail to see the hypocrisy in telling people not to assume why other people dislike things, immediately followed by assuming why they assume people dislike things?

Yup. If you think people dislike a band because they are popular, then it is because of some mutation of what I stated before.

Of course the popularity amplifies it because more people know about the band, thus exposing them to more varied opinions than some random underground band - so that argument doesn't entirely work either.

I suppose people are often prejudiced against "popular" bands because they perceive an "injustice" in the band's level of popularity, relative to bands which they hold more dear. That's just me wildly theorising though.

I find LOG boring and one dimensional.It's got nothing to do with their popularity, I enjoy Michael Jackson and that's about as mainstream as you can get. Honestly though as 41 year old male, I've got the life experience to say that their has always been some people who gravitate toward the mainstream metal acts and those who enjoy the underground. An LOG fan also probably enjoys 5 finger Death Punch and all those other "core" bands, but has no clue who Vektor are for example. LOG/Pantera/Machinehead/KS/Slipknot etc fans enjoy the superficial aggressiveness/heaviness of those acts, but they don't have the taste to realize these bands aren't very talented.These fans remind me of country/pop/r&B fans where the lyrics are of utmost importance, musicianship be damned.

this over simplifies the matter and misses the heart of the question but technically it's correct. it's their visibility that make lamb of god recieve so much shit- in people's mind they are the representatives for and embodiment of specific things they hate (things named in this thread).

as for me I've heard a couple of their songs and found no reason to look further. so I don't hate them, they just have no appeal to me, they're like a non-entity

I find LOG boring and one dimensional.It's got nothing to do with their popularity, I enjoy Michael Jackson and that's about as mainstream as you can get. Honestly though as 41 year old male, I've got the life experience to say that their has always been some people who gravitate toward the mainstream metal acts and those who enjoy the underground. An LOG fan also probably enjoys 5 finger Death Punch and all those other "core" bands, but has no clue who Vektor are for example. LOG/Pantera/Machinehead/KS/Slipknot etc fans enjoy the superficial aggressiveness/heaviness of those acts, but they don't have the taste to realize these bands aren't very talented.These fans remind me of country/pop/r&B fans where the lyrics are of utmost importance, musicianship be damned.

I like LoG and I also like Vektor, I think it just got to do more with taste.. at least in my case.I don't like these "core" bands neither but bands like Pantera and LoG are very solid bands compared to the rest and are fun to listen to.

_________________When I kill a mosquito I don't throw it in the garbage, I leave it there so other mosquitos know not to fuck with me.

It's not a matter of one-dimensionality. It can be a problem and a valid basis for criticism, but in the case of assessing Lamb of God's lack of quality, accusing them of one-dimensionality is missing the point.

Honestly though as 41 year old male, I've got the life experience to say that their has always been some people who gravitate toward the mainstream metal acts and those who enjoy the underground. An LOG fan also probably enjoys 5 finger Death Punch and all those other "core" bands, but has no clue who Vektor are for example. LOG/Pantera/Machinehead/KS/Slipknot etc fans enjoy the superficial aggressiveness/heaviness of those acts, but they don't have the taste to realize these bands aren't very talented.These fans remind me of country/pop/r&B fans where the lyrics are of utmost importance, musicianship be damned.

I've never understood this whole "This band sucks because they're popular!" thing. If there were any reason to dislike anything, it'd be the worth of its contents, not how known or in the spotlight it is.

As for what I think of Lamb of God, I like them well enough. I think they make great music and I generally look forward to whatever they have to offer. I don't over analyze things by saying who they sound like or if that raises or lowers their worth. I just listen to the music and judge my opinion on that.

_________________

Earthcubed wrote:

I'm just perpetually annoyed by Sean William Scott and he's never been in a movie where I wasn't rooting for his head to sever by strange means.

They're one of the most popular of the heavier metal bands, and they really haven't released any awesome metal. From what I remember, they're really groovy and have that prominent -core aspect to their sound, which means immediate dismissal from most metal bands (including myself). It's similar to how Slipknot or Korn gets flack from metal fans (yes, people consider LoG on that level).